SupplyMaven API Pro

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool returns (ACTIVE/WATCH/CLEAR status for 58 signals across 3 tiers) and the statistical validation behind it. However, it lacks details on potential limitations, such as data freshness, update frequency, or error handling, which would be important for a predictive tool. The description does not contradict any annotations, as there are none.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core functionality and statistical validation, followed by output details and usage context. Every sentence adds value, such as specifying the number of signals and organizational tiers. It could be slightly more concise by integrating some details, but overall, it is well-structured and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (predictive signals with statistical validation) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description does a decent job covering purpose, output format, and usage. However, it lacks details on the output structure (e.g., how signals are organized or returned) and behavioral aspects like rate limits or data sources, which would enhance completeness for such a sophisticated tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds value by explaining that the tool evaluates signals against live supply chain data without requiring user inputs, which clarifies its autonomous nature. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description provides useful context beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns statistically validated leading indicator signals that predict commodity price movements, manufacturing shifts, and macroeconomic changes. It specifies the statistical criteria (Granger-causal, p≤0.01, accuracy ≥55%), time horizon (1 week to 6 months), and output format (ACTIVE/WATCH/CLEAR status). This is highly specific and distinguishes it from siblings like commodity_price_monitor or get_manufacturing_anomalies by focusing on predictive signals rather than current monitoring or anomaly detection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states the tool is 'used by commodity traders for forward-looking positioning, procurement teams for buy/defer timing, and hedge funds for alternative data signals,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as get_action_signals or get_signal_narratives, which might offer related functionality.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.